Saturday, June 26, 2010
While reading this article, I couldn't help but think about execution by lethal injection. The article describes the use of painkillers on unborn children, including their use to relieve the pain of being aborted.
Think about that for a moment.
Isn't this same issue one of the main reasons why lethal injection systems start off with a heavy pain killer and sedative before delivering the lethal cocktail that causes death?
The article cites research that suggests the unborn cannot feel pain early in the gestational process, but that doesn't stop me from being completely unnerved by the notion of a doctor administering a painkiller to an unborn child so that it won't feel the pain of dismemberment.
The older I get and the more I think about it the more opposed I am to abortion as a form of birth control. When I was a kid I saw all the propaganda on MTV that made abortion sound like some kind of civil rights issue when nothing could be further from the truth.
Time and time again you will hear about a woman's right to choose. What does that mean though? Really, what does that mean? Unless a woman is raped, she made a choice when she decided to have sex. All choices have consequences. One of the potential consequences of sex is pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant then she should refrain from having sex, a simple fact that the left does everything it can to ignore
The left doesn't promote personal responsibility and understanding the consequences of one's choices when it comes to sex. The left promotes sexual promiscuity and the abdication of personal responsibility over one's sexual choices, all in the name of "sexual liberation."
Well that is just plain bunk.
Freedom does not mean making bad choices and then shifting the consequences off onto someone else. It means the power to assume complete responsibility over something.
Freedom of speech prohibits the state from assuming responsibility for what someone says. It prohibits the state from attempting to control what someone says. It also prohibits the state from punishing someone for what they have said. It does not mean that people who say stupid things are to be held in equal esteem as people who say things that are wise. The consequence of saying stupid things is that people are going to doubt your intelligence, if not your sanity. Freedom of speech does not mean that you are protected from this consequence.
The same goes for sex. People have a fundamental right to make their own choices about sex as long as those choices don't violate the rights of another. But with that power, with that freedom, comes responsibility. If someone makes a choice, they have to deal with the consequences. Choosing to have sex means you might get pregnant. Violating someone else's rights (in this case your unborn child's) in order to avoid taking responsibility for your own choices is as good a definition of evil as any I've ever heard.
Abortion is not only evil, it is unnecessary. The solution to the problem that abortion claims to resolve is to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. Don't have sex with someone you don't intend to have children with. Contraceptives are available, and they do work, but they are not 100%. So either accept the risk that comes with the choice to have sex, or stick to sexual activities that won't result in conception.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
(This post was originally in response to another poster's comments on the article above)
Let me get this straight. Election day comes. John has studied the candidates. He goes to the polls and casts his vote. Juan excludes himself from the political process. He stays home and watches TV.
The election results come in and the candidate that John voted for wins over the candidate that Juan stayed home for.
In our modern Bizarro world, when the system works as intended (i.e. voters get to decide the outcome of elections), federal election law has been violated.
Self-determined behavior on the part of independent individuals now requires state intervention to ensure that members of a specific ethnic group are more likely to vote.
That is pure insanity.
I've no problem with the voting system itself. It seems no worse than any other, at first glance at least. But I do have a very big problem with the attitudes that have inspired this change. It doesn't take a latino to represent latinos any more than it takes a methodist to represent methodists. Ideas and Character are what matter, not ethnic Identity and skin Color. Bobby Jindal is living proof of this. If someone chooses to exclude themselves from the political process because no one from their self-defined identity group is on the ballot, then that person is a fucking loser.
I also dispute the notion that "our civilized society" decided that affirmative action (read racial discrimination) and minority redistricting (read Gerrymandering) are necessary to ensure equality. They do not produce equality, but its antithesis. Everyone should be held accountable to the same standards of conduct and performance. Ethnic Gerrymandering only serves to create and perpetuate ghettos, which is precisely why the left is so fond of it. They want ethnic minorities to feel isolated and marginalized so they'll be more likely to vote for the destruction the country as a whole. Divide and conquer is the name of the game.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The police have no business arresting anyone for drinking beer or anything else short of paint thinner (and even then only to take them to the hospital.) The law doesn’t get to define someone as only having certain rights and not others. If someone has reached the age of majority then that person has all of the rights (and responsibilities) that go along with that status. When the government plays favorites and defines some people as more equal than others, all of us are made less free.
You can thank MADD for this nonsense. Rather than punish drunk drivers, they lobbied the feds to punish teenagers. The end result was a ZERO percent decrease in the rate of drunk driving and the creation of an entirely new class of “criminals” where no “crime” had previously existed.
I also believe that these laws are actively enforced as a way to punish young people simply for being young.
I’m 37 years old by the way, and a dedicated libertarian.
This is just another reason for me to do most of my shopping at Wal-Mart.
The left loves to pretend that Wal-Mart abuses its employees. This is a lie of course. It is hard to abuse someone by paying them minimum wage for a job that warrants it.
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut. The average IQ is 100. Because intelligence follows a normal distribution, this means that 50% of the population has an IQ lower than this. What kind of jobs do you think these people are going to have? How much money do you expect them to be able to earn? Unless they have a valuable talent that is not tied to their intelligence, most of them are going to wind up in menial positions making minimum wage. It is unfortunate that not everyone gets to be an astronaut, but it is also inevitable. All men are created equal. That is to say that everyone is equal before the law. No one has special rights or privileges based upon their birth. But that does not mean that human beings are equal in terms of character, ability, inclination, or ambition. These all vary wildly from one person to the next, and it is inevitable that those individuals who hare lacking in ability gravitate towards jobs that are not intellectually demanding. Even if you were to take someone in one of these menial positions and give them a higher paying job, they would not be able to perform that job. They have gravitated to their natural station in life.
What makes America a great nation is the fact that a person’s station is not determined at birth. The children of these menial workers are not themselves forced to assume that same station if their talents and ambitions are greater than those of their parents. Given the genetic diversity of this country it is not at all uncommon for an above average child to be born to parents who are below average. The genius of America is that those kids have the opportunity to achieve their potential.
There are also some people who work at places like Wal Mart who are not lacking for intelligence, but who do lack ambition. Talented losers are nothing new. The other great thing about America is that should one of these underachievers ever come to their senses and see the error of their ways, opportunities to do something better with their life will still be there.
Wal-Mart also works very hard to prevent their employees from unionizing. At first glance that sounds horrible until you realize that unions in America have decayed into corrupt organizations that serve no one’s interests but that of their leaders and their bosses in the Democratic Party. I wouldn’t want to do business with a company whose workers belonged to a union unless I knew for certain that the particular union in question was NOT corrupt. Show me a union of the employees, by the employees, for the employees and I’ll support it. The unions we have in this country today don’t fit that description at all.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
"...A New York Times profile last week described Courtney Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University with nearly $100,000 in student loan debt -- debt that her degree in Religious and Women's Studies did not equip her to repay...."
I guess she should have gone for the Art History degree after all.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Now why do you suppose that a Watermelon Marxist group like Grassroots International would encourage people to destroy seeds that could be used to improve their lives?
The answer to that question can be found in the demographics of the people they are trying to victimize. Virtually everyone in Haiti is black. It is the policy of the left to keep black people in ghettoes. Some ghettoes are neighbourhoods in the inner cities of America. Other ghettoes are comprised of entire nations. The common factors that comprise a ghetto are economic poverty, spiritual and moral poverty, and a sense of hopelessness that anything can be done to make things better. So when someone comes along and offers the people in the ghetto something that might improve things, the left HAS to act to stop it.
If the people of Haiti are better able to feed themselves, this undermines the oppression that the left seeks to impose upon them. So of course the left is going to do whatever it can to prevent them from making progress in this way.
Now you might be wondering why the left would do this at all. Why would the left want to keep certain people in poverty. Well the answer is that they hold these people up as the victims of Democracy and Capitalism. In other words, the left works to prevent these people from receiving the fruits of Democracy and Capitalism so that they can then claim that Democracy and Capitalism have created the problems these people are suffering from.